Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

ariel · 7th January 2012, 05:04 PM

Hi Ibrahim,
Thanks for the detailed response.
IMHO, the theory you are proposing falls under the category : "True, true, and unrelated"

Multiple cultures had swords and shields, even when the blades were made of copper and bent under minimal effort. Thus, any warrior would avoid direct blade-to-blade contact while attempting to damage the opponent's sword. Thus, parrying with a shield ( of whatever side and form) must have been the routine practice from times immemorial all over the world. I do not think one can pinpoint the origin of that practice to any specific locality with even a minimal degree of certainty.
Fencing books were popular in Europe for the past several centuries. It is a shame and a sorrow that only Mamluks bothered to compose manuals on military techniques and training. This is why from time to time this Forum and dozens other swordplay-interested groups raise a heated discussion on the use of shamshir or yataghan. As they say, if it is not written, it does not exist.
Crucible steel, indeed, was a mystery, and the europeans were not particularly interested in it, because of their different concept of military structure, artistic value or sanctity of the blade and their scientific/technological thrust, whereby they bypassed wootz in favor of equally good, but infinitely cheaper, quality steel. In the West , wootz remained a curiosity, an Everest that had to be conquered simply because it was there.

However, when in the 19th century the Europeans became interested in crucible steel, there were several articles in specialty journals or full books ( Crivelli, Anosov, Belyaev etc). For that, they ( or their representatives) had to travel to the East to actually observe the manufacturing process, because there was no Indian or Persian written recipe.

Overall, I admire your attempts to research the origins of Omani swords, but disagree with some of your too-far-reaching conclusions.

With best wishes.

7th January 2012, 05:04 PM	#178
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Hi Ibrahim, Thanks for the detailed response. IMHO, the theory you are proposing falls under the category : "True, true, and unrelated" Multiple cultures had swords and shields, even when the blades were made of copper and bent under minimal effort. Thus, any warrior would avoid direct blade-to-blade contact while attempting to damage the opponent's sword. Thus, parrying with a shield ( of whatever side and form) must have been the routine practice from times immemorial all over the world. I do not think one can pinpoint the origin of that practice to any specific locality with even a minimal degree of certainty. Fencing books were popular in Europe for the past several centuries. It is a shame and a sorrow that only Mamluks bothered to compose manuals on military techniques and training. This is why from time to time this Forum and dozens other swordplay-interested groups raise a heated discussion on the use of shamshir or yataghan. As they say, if it is not written, it does not exist. Crucible steel, indeed, was a mystery, and the europeans were not particularly interested in it, because of their different concept of military structure, artistic value or sanctity of the blade and their scientific/technological thrust, whereby they bypassed wootz in favor of equally good, but infinitely cheaper, quality steel. In the West , wootz remained a curiosity, an Everest that had to be conquered simply because it was there. However, when in the 19th century the Europeans became interested in crucible steel, there were several articles in specialty journals or full books ( Crivelli, Anosov, Belyaev etc). For that, they ( or their representatives) had to travel to the East to actually observe the manufacturing process, because there was no Indian or Persian written recipe. Overall, I admire your attempts to research the origins of Omani swords, but disagree with some of your too-far-reaching conclusions. With best wishes.